Lakhani and Wolf's
paper on the
motivation of free software developers says that a considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This was despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.

Groklaw
sends a Dear Darl letter; a group from the free software and
open source community has put together a response to SCO CEO Darl
McBride's Open Letter to the Open Source Community.

Hardware
Central [Archived Page]. We disagree with one aspect of this article's
conclusion: It's not legitimate for Microsoft to help Disney and the
RIAA impose Digital Restrictions Management on you, any more than it
is legitimate for Disney and the RIAA to try it. The full power of
computing should be available to you, not just to the owners of
information.

The SCO Sue Me Petition has overwhelmed its inceptor
and the petition is no longer taking votes. The author
of the petition, John Everitt, was expecting only several
responses but instead he had thousands of participants. In the
last available public communication about the petition, he
urged people to help FSF in any
way possible.

Senator Alberto Conde's answer to CESSI regarding Bill E-135/02-03 which proposes use of Free Software in the public sector for the province of Buenos Aires. The bill has been submitted by Senator Alberto Conde himself.

This article takes a narrowly economic view of its subject, measuring
social alternatives only by what goods are available for what price,
assuming that you the citizen are a mere consumer and place no value
on your freedom in itself. It also uses the misleading term
“intellectual
property”, which is misleading because it lumps copyrights and
patents together. The article also lumps them together, which it can
get away with because it ignores the (different) social issues that
copyrights and patents raise.

Despite those flaws, it is significant. If one can judge copyright to
be harmful even on narrow economic terms, disregarding the ethical
wrong of stopping people from sharing, it can only be more harmful
once we consider the ethics as well.

“Copyright
C.P.U.” by Harry Hillman Chartrand is a good summary of the history of
copyright.

Malla Pollack's
“What
is Congress Supposed to Promote?” explains how the United States'
government's recent tendencies to provide maximum control to copyright
holders defies the justification for establishment of copyright set out
in the constitution.

Peruvian Congressman Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez wrote a
letter to a Microsoft manager after they wrote expressing concern about
the country's pending Free Software in Public Administration bill. It
does an excellent job of allaying concerns about free software often
raised by Microsoft and others. The English translation of the letter is
here.

openrevolt.org was a site devoted to providing information about
the European Copyright Directive and similar legislation. It
concentrated on the two principal problems of the EUCD, which made
it easier for copyright holders to censor webpages on ISPs and gave
legal protection to copy-protection measures.

Chilling Effects is
a collection point for cease and desist notices concerning online
activity — we invite visitors to enter C&Ds they have
received or sent. The website collects the C&Ds in a searchable
database and hyperlinks them to explanations of the legal
issues.

Coding is a Crime, by Shannon Cochran, is a commentary on the indictment
of Jon Johansen on felony charges for helping write DeCSS.

Patents Are An Economic Absurdity: This article adopts as a premise the popular view that free trade is desirable. We don't always agree - beyond a certain point, free trade gives businesses too much power, allowing them to intimidate democracy. But that is a different matter.

Not available online, but as early as 1960 Bernard Galler wrote a
letter to the editor of the Communications of the ACM (vol.3, no.4,
pp.A12-A13), saying in part (mentioning price, but clearly implying
freedom):

… it is clear that what is being
charged for is the development of the program, and
while I am particularly unhappy that it comes from a
university, I believe it is damaging to the whole
profession. There isn't a 704 installation that hasn't
directly benefited from the free exchange of programs
made possible by the distribution facilities of SHARE.
If we start to sell our programs, this will set very
undesirable precedents.